MTAC. Packages. February 2018

Transcription

1 MTAC Packages 1

2 MTAC Discussion Topics Packages Shipping partner service files for advanced notice opportunities IMpb address quality including secondary info Shipping partner events for intercept and redirect Destination entry ZIP corrections 2

3 MTAC Pulse of the Industry Updates Packages 3

4 PTR Agenda & Action Items for Focus Groups USPS to provide Facility IDs for DDU Return Packages PTR is evaluating this request, working with other systems to document requirements and determine what changes would be needed to implement this functionality. Status of the Federal Register Notice for IMpb compliance? IMpb Federal Register Notice published 02/27/2018 If USPS determines t destination entry ZIP Code provided by shippers is incorrect, USPS promise to provide the correct ZIP Code as part of a concession to include this element as a component of IMpb Quality Compliance? For packages with the Destination Rate Indicator equal D (Destination Delivery Unit) PTR compares the first 3 digits of the Event ZIP Code from the first Arrival-At-Unit (07 Event) to the first 3 digits of the Entry Facility ZIP Code provided in the Manifest Header Record from the shipper. 4

5 Event Names Updated In Extract File USPS is updating event descriptions in Customer Scan Event Extract Files to simplified language used on USPS.com, Informed Delivery, and in and text messages to better communicate package status to customers. These changes will be implemented March 11,

6 IMpb Compliance 6

7 IMpb Compliance Quality Metrics Competitive Products Only 100% Destination Delivery Address (AQ) Top 4 AQ + Projected Merger DZ (Effective July 1, 2017) 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 94.35% 94.84% 95.31% 94.81% 94.89% 94.52% 94.48% 94.38% 94.44% 94.31% 94.38% 93.20% 93.39% Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 89% Target 100% Shipping Services File (MQ) Top 4 MQ + Projected Merger UN (Effective July 1, 2017) 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 96.11% 93.71% 94.14% 94.59% 94.79% 95.01% 95.26% 95.91% 95.54% 94.53% 93.91% 93.50% 92.59% Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 94% Target (new)* 91% Target 100% 99% 99.71% 99.70% 99.83% 99.82% 99.79% 99.82% 99.76% 99.74% 99.44% 99.77% 99.38% 99.56% 99.66% IMpb Barcode (BQ) 98% 97% 98% Target (new)* Top 2 BQ 96% 95% 95% Target * Effective July % Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 7

8 IMpb WorkGroup 185 Discussion The objective of WG 185 was to a determine reasonable, achievable threshold target for Address Quality metric to be implemented in January Recommendation Summary: MTAC Work Group #185 recommends that the threshold for Address Quality (AQ) remain 89%, to allow Industry awareness and adoption of the validation rules before raising the threshold level. The workgroup would like to continue working to set the overall AQ threshold for January Next Steps: Continue the current WG 185 to determine a threshold recommendation for Address Quality to be implemented January

9 IMpb WorkGroup185 Discussion When looking to make a justification for not raising the Address Quality threshold, it was determined that more than half of the shippers who shipped more than 100 packages were unable to meet the 89% threshold for the Month of October 2017 and January October 2017 metrics: Mailers who shipped 100 or more packages in October 2017 = 2,318 Mailers who met the 89% Address Quality Threshold = 1,059 Mailers who fell under the 89% threshold = 1,259 January 2018 metrics: Mailers who shipped 100 or more packages in January, 2018 = 2,454 Mailers who met the 89% Address Quality Threshold = 1,223 Mailers who fell under the 89% threshold = 1,231 9

10 IMpb WG 185 Recommendations The following items are the concerns that Industry would like USPS to improve before raising the current threshold for Address Quality in January 2019: USPS to provide examples to the industry that illustrate the complexity of the various delivery address information formats, and to communicate the standard to not fail the validation criteria elements. o o This will include the Delivery Address Line 1 and 2 differentiation File format guidance and limitations when delivery address form has two lines and the file format has one line (field). USPS should consider creating additional fields in the Shipping Services File and/or the Shipping Partner file to provide additional space to accommodate delivery addresses that exceed the current character limit, providing 2 address lines. USPS to monitor and provide data analysis on numbers of the affected mailers and what elements are causing them to fail the AQ validation criteria. USPS to monitor and provide data analysis that shows what is on the label versus what is available in the file (relative to secondary information) o To host IMpb Quality customer educational webinars targeted at smaller customers/infrequent shippers and have provided IMpb Quality Deep Dives surrounding Address Quality improvements and standards. 10

11 IMpb Compliance Visualization Dashboard Demo Explore the possibility of providing a way for mailers to see quality metrics through a D3? Visualization: The current visualization will display a summary of the monthly IMpb Compliance Indicators (AQ, MQ, & BQ) Mailers will be able to drill down to view compliance data at a state level which highlights IMpb compliance issues by geographic location n_ /app/ IMPB DASHBOARD DEMO 11

12 Address Quality Discussion Timely, high quality, digitized address information is critical to enhancing the customer experience and leveraging operating efficiencies to increase the value and competitiveness for USPS package products USPS will move forward with other strategies to electronically capture and correct Address Information for packages with: Missing Secondary Information elements Incomplete or incorrect street elements Untimely Data 12

13 IMpb Dashboard Demo Back Up Slides 13

14 IMpb Dashboard Explore the possibility of providing a way for mailers to see quality metrics through a D3? Visualization: The current visualization will display a summary of the monthly IMpb Compliance Indicators (AQ, MQ, & BQ) Mailers will be able to drill down to view compliance data at a state level which highlights IMpb compliance issues by geographic location 14

15 IMpb Dashboard The dashboard will also show the monthly IMpb Compliance performance for a 6 month period to allow mailers to see trends. Compliance scores can also be broken down by induvial mailer for closer analyses. 15

16 IMpb Dashboard The dashboard will also breakdown AQ compliance by DPV Footnotes to help mailers identify address issues. 16

17 IMpb Dashboard The dashboard will allow mailers to drill down and export piece level data for any IMpb Compliance issues, this will help mailers quickly identify root causes of problems

18 Addressing & Geospatial Technology 18

19 CASS / MASS Cycle O Informed Delivery Address Authority Data Exchange 19

20 Cycle O Highlights 20

21 CASS /MASS Cycle O Cycle O Highlights Enhanced Identification of: PO Box only delivery ZIP Codes R777 phantom route & No-Stat addresses Door Not Accessible, No Secure Location, & Non-Delivery Days Standardization & DPV confirmation of: PBSA PO Box street address CMRA PMB identifier & DPV confirmation Single trailing alpha on a primary number New military addresses OMC & UMR 21

22 CASS /MASS Cycle O No-Stat Reason Codes The USPS has added a new table to the DPV/DSF2Hash Product called No-Stat Reason Code Table. This table will provide details as to why the records are flagged as No-Stats. This table is optional and will be available beginning in the May product, which will be posted to the Electronic Product Fulfillment (EPF) website on Monday, April 23. During CASS Cycle O certification if a Y is received on the DPV No-Stat table, the N-Stat Reason code must be correctly returned. 22

23 CASS /MASS Cycle O No-Stat Reason Code Definitions Reason Code 0 Regular No-Stat 1 IDA (Internal Drop Address) 2 CDS No-Stat 3 Collision 4 CMZ (College, Military and other types) Code Description Indicates addresses not receiving delivery and the addresses are not counted as possible deliveries. These are addresses that do not receive mail delivery directly from the USPS, but are delivered to a drop address that services them. These are addresses that have not yet become deliverable. For example, a new subdivision where lots and primary numbers have been determined, but no structure exists yet for occupancy. These addresses do not actually DPV confirm. In this case, the Y should be set to an N on the DPV A table and all other table values should be blank. These are ZIP + 4 records USPS has incorporated into the data as logical delivery points but not serviced directly by USPS. 23

24 CASS /MASS Cycle O DPV Return Code Enhancements Redefine DPV Codes to better indicate the reason an address did not produce a Y return code. Current Definitions: Y Address was DPV confirmed for both primary and (if present) secondary numbers D Address was DPV confirmed for the primary number only and the secondary number is required but missing. S Address was DPV confirmed for the primary number. A secondary number was present but unconfirmed. (This led to confusion as whether a secondary was required or not.) New Definitions: (Codes to be determined) S Address had a secondary number that was not confirmed and was not needed with the primary address number. New 1 Address had a secondary number that was not confirmed but a valid secondary number was needed with the primary address number. New 2 Address was confirmed (ex: R777) but USPS mail delivery is not made to this address. 24

25 CASS /MASS Cycle O Tentative Schedule CASS Cycle O Pre-Meeting February Partnership In Tomorrow (PIT) Meeting May NCOA Link PIT May Official Rules Release June Send Static Data September CASS & NCOA Link Stage I Release October CASS & NCOA Link Stage II Release February MASS Test Decks Available September CASS Developers Certification Completed December MASS Manufacturers Certification Completed January Software Released to End-users NLT March Expiration of CASS Cycle N July Implementation of CASS Cycle O August

26 Informed Delivery 26

27 Informed Delivery 11-Digit Conflicts 11-Digit De-conflicts Definition Address records that are currently coded in the AMS database that share the same 11-digit delivery point. These addresses are currently ineligible for participation in the Informed Delivery program. Objective Resolve the 11-digit conflicts to allow address records to become eligible to participate in the Informed Delivery program. 2,354,501 5,213,346 TOTAL DP CONFLICTS TOTAL ADDRESS RECORDS 27

28 Informed Delivery 11-Digit Conflicts 11-Digit De-conflicts Resolutions Option 1: Crosswalk: Leverage existing geo-seg +4 even/odd ranges for the generation of a unique 11-digit. It limits the use of available ZIP+4 and potential ZIP Code saturation. Also limits impact on address matching software. Option 2: Convert records to a High-Rise; uniquely assigning a ZIP+4 to colliding deliveries. Potentially, 96% of the collisions can be corrected by using this method in conjunction with option 1. Option 3: Create a derivative linkage table similar to LACS that will allow software to query the table to search for an equivalent but unique 11-digit to be applied to the mail-piece. This method will be considered if necessary after options 1 and 2. Option 4: No Resolution; conflict can t be broken. 28

29 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction 11-Digit De-conflicts Resolutions and Breakdown 29

30 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction ZIP Codes with Highest Percentage of Conflicts There are 64 ZIP Codes with 11-Digit Conflicts in the Chicago District. These ZIPs have the highest potential for implementing ZIP splits as a result of the de-conflicting effort if using the unique ZIP+4 assignment effort. Seven largest ZIP Codes with Conflicts for Chicago District ZIP CODE TOTAL CONFLICTS , , , , , , ,729 30

31 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction ZIP Codes with Highest Percentage of Conflicts There are 159 ZIP Codes with 11-Digit Conflicts in the New York Metro Area. These ZIPs have the highest potential for implementing ZIP splits as a result of the de-conflicting effort if using the unique ZIP+4 is assignment effort. Seven Largest ZIP Codes with Conflicts for New York Metro Area ZIP CODE TOTAL CONFLICTS , , , , , , ,060 31

32 Address Authority Data Exchange (AADE) 32

33 Address Authority Data Exchange Objective Partner with the Department of Transportation, and their efforts, to create the National Address Database. Compare address data received from the DOT National Address Database (NAD) to the USPS Delivery Point File (DPF) database. Unmatched records will be researched and validated to be potentially added to AMS as a valid delivery point. 33

34 Address Authority Data Exchange with DPF NAD Data Breakdown Currently representing 13 States Total Addresses Received from NAD 42,281,449 DPF Match before AME and AEC 30,965,575 DPF Match after AME 4,789,352 DPF Match after AEC 949,918 Total DPF 36,704,845 Match w/o DPF AME Match w/o DPF match 2,816,331 AEC Match w/o DPF Match 342,078 Total Match w/o DPF 3,158,409 No Match AEC no match (could not resolve) 2,418,195 Bad Address (Missing ZIP and Address) 956,764 34

35 Address Authority Data Exchange Phase I ZIP + 4 Matches Targeted 80% validation by 9/30 Research and validate records that match a current ZIP + 4 range, but do not match to DPF Match w/o DPF: AME Match w/o DPF match 2,816,331 AEC Match w/o DPF Match 342,078 Total Match w/o DPF 3,158,409 Leverage enhanced geo coordinate to determine if an address match can be made. Unmatched records will be loaded into GMT for verification and acceptance into AMS by the local AMS office. 6 Districts are currently piloting the validation process to ensure records are received and being updated in AMS appropriately. Status updates will be provided monthly that shows how many records have been successfully added to the AMS database. 35

36 Thank You! 36

37 MTAC First-Class Mail 37

38 MTAC Discussion Topics All Classes Bundle breakage data Two sets of service data for disasters Report that shows volume of automation flats in manual The Future of Informed Visibility Mail in Measurement Scorecard 38

39 Informed Visibility Update 39

40 Informed Visibility Update IV our single source for near real-time data THANK YOU to industry partners! Over 1,138 new mailers joined IV since July 1, 2017! +250 Million daily Logical Delivery Events provided daily through IV-MTR data feeds 1.1 Billion scan records processed daily by IV 40

41 Informed Visibility Roadmap Proposed Cadence of Application Scope Review will be provided 4 weeks prior and will include: Web changes review wireframes Data changes review new fields that will be available Demo and Documentation Preview will provided 1-2 weeks prior and include: Updates to User Guide Updates to Data Feed Specifications: Data Dictionary Sample Files / xml Messages, any new Op Codes Scope Review Demo & Documentation Preview Release Date 1/19/18 2/2/18 2/17/18 3/2/18 3/16/18 4/1/18 4/13/18 4/27/18 5/12/18 5/25/18 6/8/18 6/23/18 41

42 No Piece Scan 42

43 No Piece Scan FY18 Q1 In FY18 Q1, about 4% of Letters had No Visibility Mail Class Mail Shape Entry Discount Volume with Visibility No Visibility Volume % No Visibility Presort First Class Letters/Cards ORIGIN 5,486,453, ,762, % DSCF 6,926,570, ,289, % ORIGIN 903,892, ,372, % USPS Marketing Mail Letters DNDC 844,055,360 50,541, % ASF 60,850,551 2,676, % DDU 61,992 3, % Total 14,221,885, ,644, % In FY18 Q1, about 15% of Flats had No Visibility Mail Class Mail Shape Entry Discount Volume with Visibility No Visibility Volume % No Visibility DSCF 1,814,330, ,281, % ORIGIN 221,069,753 45,966, % USPS Marketing Mail Flat DNDC 140,035,415 45,231, % DDU 36,369,958 5,280, % ASF 2,354,093 5,022, % ADC 12,931 3, % DSCF 467,176, ,184, % ORIGIN 103,774,942 33,116, % Periodicals Flat DNDC 13,109,306 8,022, % ADC 10,194,590 3,810, % DDU 1,220,505 1,716, % ASF 53,753 17, % Total 2,809,702, ,653, % Note: Metrics based on Full-Service Volume with Start-the-Clock for Start-the-Clock Dates 10/1/ /31/

44 Periodicals Deep Dive on No Piece Scan by Entry Type 44

45 FY18 Q1 Periodicals Visibility Flows Metrics by Entry Discount Type In FY18 Q1, about 20% of Periodicals did not have any visibility at the piece level DDU Entry had the highest % of Periodicals which did not have any piece level visibility Breakdown by Entry Type: Entry Discount Type % with No Visibility % with Bundle Visibility % with FSS Visibility % with AFSM Visibility % with Other Visibility DSCF 17.66% 46.21% 18.64% 17.37% 0.13% ORIGIN 24.19% 28.46% 10.97% 35.75% 0.62% DNDC 37.97% 35.68% 7.05% 19.20% 0.10% ADC 27.21% 28.77% 6.51% 37.39% 0.12% DDU 58.44% 33.87% 0.04% 0.07% 7.58% ASF 24.48% 20.25% 1.43% 53.66% 0.18% Total 19.78% 42.26% 16.59% 21.12% 0.25% Note: Metrics based on Full-Service Volume with Start-the-Clock for Start-the-Clock Dates 10/1/ /31/

46 Manual Bullpen Scanning Mail & Package Visibility 46

47 Manual Bullpen Visibility Operation 110 Initial Breakdown Manual Operation Numbers Operation 126 Dispatch Nesting and Visibility Proof-Of-Concept testing underway in two plants (Two scanner solutions) Scanning Container Placards or Tray/Sack Labels > Nesting Dependencies: Full Service Mailings edoc Accuracy and Barcode Readability Challenges relative to Turnaround Mail Mailer is dropping Handling Units from edoc at Delivery Units as well as origin plant 47

48 Mail Visibility Applications (MVA) 48

49 Mail Visibility Applications (MVA) Two internal mobile applications launched in September 2017: Mail History Application Employees can use their USPS mobile devices to retrieve near real-time delivery information by scanning barcodes for containers, mail handling units, and single mail pieces Enhanced Barcode Diagnostics Application Employees can use their USPS mobile devices to scan barcodes to retrieve diagnostic data of the visible elements of the barcodes scanned and highlight invalid data elements USPS is currently considering how to address long hauls. 49

50 Addressing & Geospatial Technology 50

51 CASS / MASS Cycle O Green & Secure Informed Delivery Address Authority Data Exchange 51

52 Cycle O Highlights 52

53 CASS /MASS Cycle O Cycle O Highlights Enhanced Identification of: PO Box only delivery ZIP Codes R777 phantom route & No-Stat addresses Door Not Accessible, No Secure Location, & Non-Delivery Days Standardization & DPV confirmation of: PBSA PO Box street address CMRA PMB identifier & DPV confirmation Single trailing alpha on a primary number New military addresses OMC & UMR 53

54 CASS /MASS Cycle O No-Stat Reason Codes The USPS has added a new table to the DPV/DSF2Hash Product called No-Stat Reason Code Table. This table will provide details as to why the records are flagged as No-Stats. This table is optional and will be available beginning in the May product, which will be posted to the Electronic Product Fulfillment (EPF) website on Monday, April 23. During CASS Cycle O certification if a Y is received on the DPV No-Stat table, the N-Stat Reason code must be correctly returned. 54

55 CASS /MASS Cycle O No-Stat Reason Code Definitions Reason Code 0 Regular No-Stat 1 IDA (Internal Drop Address) 2 CDS No-Stat 3 Collision 4 CMZ (College, Military and other types) Code Description Indicates addresses not receiving delivery and the addresses are not counted as possible deliveries. These are addresses that do not receive mail delivery directly from the USPS, but are delivered to a drop address that services them. These are addresses that have not yet become deliverable. For example, a new subdivision where lots and primary numbers have been determined, but no structure exists yet for occupancy. These addresses do not actually DPV confirm. In this case, the Y should be set to an N on the DPV A table and all other table values should be blank. These are ZIP + 4 records USPS has incorporated into the data as logical delivery points but not serviced directly by USPS. 55

56 CASS /MASS Cycle O DPV Return Code Enhancements Redefine DPV Codes to better indicate the reason an address did not produce a Y return code. Current Definitions: Y Address was DPV confirmed for both primary and (if present) secondary numbers D Address was DPV confirmed for the primary number only and the secondary number is required but missing. S Address was DPV confirmed for the primary number. A secondary number was present but unconfirmed. (This led to confusion as whether a secondary was required or not.) New Definitions: (Codes to be determined) S Address had a secondary number that was not confirmed and was not needed with the primary address number. New 1 Address had a secondary number that was not confirmed but a valid secondary number was needed with the primary address number. New 2 Address was confirmed (ex: R777) but USPS mail delivery is not made to this address. 56

57 CASS /MASS Cycle O Tentative Schedule CASS Cycle O Pre-Meeting February Partnership In Tomorrow (PIT) Meeting May NCOA Link PIT May Official Rules Release June Send Static Data September CASS & NCOA Link Stage I Release October CASS & NCOA Link Stage II Release February MASS Test Decks Available September CASS Developers Certification Completed December MASS Manufacturers Certification Completed January Software Released to End-users NLT March Expiration of CASS Cycle N July Implementation of CASS Cycle O August

58 Green & Secure 58

59 Green & Secure Green & Secure Mail Disposition Options Intelligent Mail barcode is REQUIRED! First-Class Mail Change Service Requested Option 1 Change Service Requested Option 2 Secure Destruction Service Option 1 Secure Destruction Service Option 2 USPS Marketing Mail Change Service Requested Option 1 Change Service Requested Option 2 (Forwarded USPS Marketing Mail Fees are charged for forwarded pieces) Option 1 recycles ALL UAA Option 2 forwards if possible, recycles the rest Secure Destruction shreds before recycling 59

60 Informed Delivery 60

61 Informed Delivery 11-Digit Conflicts 11-Digit De-conflicts Definition Address records that are currently coded in the AMS database that share the same 11-digit delivery point. These addresses are currently ineligible for participation in the Informed Delivery program. Objective Resolve the 11-digit conflicts to allow address records to become eligible to participate in the Informed Delivery program. 2,354,501 5,213,346 TOTAL DP CONFLICTS TOTAL ADDRESS RECORDS 61

62 Informed Delivery 11-Digit Conflicts 11-Digit De-conflicts Resolutions Option 1: Crosswalk: Leverage existing geo-seg +4 even/odd ranges for the generation of a unique 11-digit. It limits the use of available ZIP+4 and potential ZIP Code saturation. Also limits impact on address matching software. Option 2: Convert records to a High-Rise; uniquely assigning a ZIP+4 to colliding deliveries. Potentially, 96% of the collisions can be corrected by using this method in conjunction with option 1. Option 3: Create a derivative linkage table similar to LACS that will allow software to query the table to search for an equivalent but unique 11-digit to be applied to the mail-piece. This method will be considered if necessary after options 1 and 2. Option 4: No Resolution; conflict can t be broken. 62

63 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction 11-Digit De-conflicts Resolutions and Breakdown 63

64 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction ZIP Codes with Highest Percentage of Conflicts There are 64 ZIP Codes with 11-Digit Conflicts in the Chicago District. These ZIPs have the highest potential for implementing ZIP splits as a result of the de-conflicting effort if using the unique ZIP+4 assignment effort. Seven largest ZIP Codes with Conflicts for Chicago District ZIP CODE TOTAL CONFLICTS , , , , , , ,729 64

65 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction ZIP Codes with Highest Percentage of Conflicts There are 159 ZIP Codes with 11-Digit Conflicts in the New York Metro Area. These ZIPs have the highest potential for implementing ZIP splits as a result of the de-conflicting effort if using the unique ZIP+4 is assignment effort. Seven Largest ZIP Codes with Conflicts for New York Metro Area ZIP CODE TOTAL CONFLICTS , , , , , , ,060 65

66 Address Authority Data Exchange (AADE) 66

67 Address Authority Data Exchange Objective Partner with the Department of Transportation, and their efforts, to create the National Address Database. Compare address data received from the DOT National Address Database (NAD) to the USPS Delivery Point File (DPF) database. Unmatched records will be researched and validated to be potentially added to AMS as a valid delivery point. 67

68 Address Authority Data Exchange with DPF NAD Data Breakdown Currently representing 13 States Total Addresses Received from NAD 42,281,449 DPF Match before AME and AEC 30,965,575 DPF Match after AME 4,789,352 DPF Match after AEC 949,918 Total DPF 36,704,845 Match w/o DPF AME Match w/o DPF match 2,816,331 AEC Match w/o DPF Match 342,078 Total Match w/o DPF 3,158,409 No Match AEC no match (could not resolve) 2,418,195 Bad Address (Missing ZIP and Address) 956,764 68

69 Address Authority Data Exchange Phase I ZIP + 4 Matches Targeted 80% validation by 9/30 Research and validate records that match a current ZIP + 4 range, but do not match to DPF Match w/o DPF: AME Match w/o DPF match 2,816,331 AEC Match w/o DPF Match 342,078 Total Match w/o DPF 3,158,409 Leverage enhanced geo coordinate to determine if an address match can be made. Unmatched records will be loaded into GMT for verification and acceptance into AMS by the local AMS office. 6 Districts are currently piloting the validation process to ensure records are received and being updated in AMS appropriately. Status updates will be provided monthly that shows how many records have been successfully added to the AMS database. 69

70 MTAC Pulse of the Industry Service performance Measurement 70

71 Mail In Measurement Approach to Increasing Mail in Measurement 71

72 Percentage of Total Volume that is Full Service Full Service Mail Trend In December 2017, 92% of Commercial mail eligible for Full-Service was Full-Service Note: Below graph depicts FS Adoption % as an avg. for the quarter; Slide title depicts the % for the latest month. 100% 94% 90% 86% 82% 86% 87% 89% 89% 89% 90% 91% 90% 92% 92% 92% 92% 80% 83% 79% 76% 74% 70% 69% 64% 60% 57% 60% 50% 49% 50% 51% 53% 53% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FCM Letters & Cards FCM Flats MKT Letters MKT Flats PER Flats All Mail Types 72

73 FY18 Q1 Commercial Mail Volume Mail In Measurement In FY18 Q1, over 78% of Full-Service mail was in Measurement Mail Class Mail Shape Commercial Full-Service Eligible Full-Service In Measurement % of Full-Service In Measurement First Class Presort Letter/Card 9,749,483,116 9,372,407,989 8,977,992,193 6,635,144, % First Class Presort Flat 169,899, ,348, ,977,479 87,698, % USPS Marketing Letter 14,499,209,464 14,209,168,816 13,338,299,049 11,056,692, % USPS Marketing Flat 5,817,237,048 3,998,819,735 3,566,993,218 2,751,423, % Periodicals Flat 1,250,121,841 1,206,914,247 1,093,896, ,828, % Total 31,485,951,126 28,938,659,365 27,104,158,475 21,286,786, % Metrics are for Mailing Dates 10/1/ /31/2017 Commercial and Full-Service Eligible Volumes sourced from PostalOne! 73

74 Increase Mail In Measurement Teams & Chronology M-in-M Network HQ Team SPM Priyanka Misri, John Nabor, Wayne Palmiter Accenture Beau Rauch, Lisa Leu Marketing Chip Brown III (MMS), Frank Montemayor (BMS), Phillip Parrish (MEPT) Networks Prat Shah Area Co-Coordinators (Mail Acceptance, Operations) CM Danny Luc, Dmetrius Alexander EA Barry Gilbert, Regis Curtin GL Linda Bergeland, Drew Mason NE Michelle Saracusa, Carla Edmonds PA Claudia Munoz, Kelly Porter SO Beth Baughman, Rick Bay WE Ray Cordova, Jon Hummel Resolution Chronology 03/2017 to 07/2017 identify top 3 exclusion reasons for each mail class/shape and HQ team investigate high volume site/mailer pairs for root cause and resolution 07/2018 publish of HQ team results in Resolution Guide 08/2017 onward investigate Field inquiries regarding published resolutions and update the Guide 11/2017 complete L601 correction for LA, NJ, KC, and STL NDC s for Invalid EPFED 11/2017 complete Southern Area STC correction to FDB locale key and CSA s for No Start-the- Clock 01/2018 eliminate Incorrect Entry Facility exclusion 02/2018 initiate Field collaborations as method to develop resolutions for unresolved exclusions 03/2018 implement resolution for Seamless BMEU entry for No Start-the-Clock Pending Long Haul exclusion dependent on completion of MVA Trailer Visibility application 74

75 Increase Mail In Measurement Communications, Tools, Efforts, Results Field Communications 07/2018 publish Improved SPM Exclusions webpage 08/2018 onward initiate and continue national focus on exclusion volume and resolution efforts through monthly Area Co-Coordinator checkpoints. HQ team participate in Area facilitated District Co-Coordinator checkpoints. Field Tools 07/2018 publish Resolution Guide for Commercial Mail Excluded from Measurement (on 4th revision) 07/2018 improve SPM Exclusions by Area analysis files (on 3rd revision) Current Resolution Efforts Results Ongoing Field analysis of exclusions and application of resolutions w/ HQ team support 02/2018 Field apply new resolution for SCF entry mail entered at co-located BMEU 02/2018 HQ/Field collaboration w/ Omaha P&DC and North Texas P&DC to develop resolutions for Inconsistent SPM Data and No Piece Scan exclusions for letters 02/2018 initiate investigation into No Piece Scan exclusion for BPM Mail in Measurement by FY: FY16 = 71.73%, FY17 = 74.88%, FY18 YTD = 78.50% 04/2017 initiate I-MR charts to track monthly % included by mail class/shape 01/2018 initiate national chart to track FY % and volume included by mail class/shape 75

76 Increase Mail In Measurement % Included FY 2018 Dec +3.62% Acronyms & Symbols I = Individual Values (top chart) MR = Moving Range (bottom chart) X = average I for the period M R = average MR for the period UCL = upper control limit LCL = lower control limit +3.33% +3.59% 76

77 Increase Mail In Measurement % Included FY 2018 Dec +0.86% +3.97% +2.66% -0.76% 77

78 Increase Mail In Measurement Results Update FY 2018 Dec District Exclusion Results (YTD Dec) FY 2017 AREA DISTRICT 07/08-09/30 YTD Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2 NATIONAL 23.89% 21.98% 22.59% 21.22% 22.14% CAPITAL METRO 24.07% 22.54% 22.52% 21.96% 23.31% EASTERN 22.90% 21.96% 21.00% 20.72% 24.84% GREAT LAKES 26.64% 25.56% 26.45% 23.47% 27.02% NORTHEAST 25.74% 22.87% 24.79% 20.65% 23.16% PACIFIC 21.12% 18.24% 20.88% 16.93% 16.54% SOUTHERN 27.35% 22.46% 23.25% 22.19% 21.83% WESTERN 19.39% 19.95% 19.91% 21.43% 18.18% FY Trends National (YTD Dec) FY

79 Service Diagnostics 79

80 End-to-End Mail Diagnostics Periodicals 80

81 Enterprise Analytics Service Performance First-Class Mail 81

82 Percent On Time Commercial First-Class Mail Performance by Quarter 100 Commercial First-Class Mail FY13 thru FY18 Performance By Quarter Hurricane Sandy Winter Storm Jonas Winter Storm Stella California Wildfire; Winter Storm Chloe Operation Window Change Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Postal Quarter Overnight Two-Day Three-to-Five-Day Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose and Maria; No FedEx air lift on July 3 Winter storms Grayson, Inga and Jaxon; California mudslides Note: Preliminary FY18 Q2 through 1/26/18. Results starting FY17 Q1 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior quarters results are based on Last Processing February Operation 2018 (LPO) approach. Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District starting 9/16/17 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 82

83 Enterprise Analytics Service Performance First-Class Mail Letters 83

84 Score Prior to Last Mile First-Class Mail (Letters) Score Trend 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 98.03% 98.07% 98.67% 94.91% 89.95% 96.26% 88.75% 97.67% 93.41% 97.04% 97.53% 97.49% 94.02% 86.71% 95.36% 94.68% 90.98% 87.14% 12/16/17 12/23/17 12/30/17 1/6/18 1/13/18 1/20/18 SPLY - Volume Overnight - Volume 2-Day - Volume 3-To-5-Day - Volume Overnight 2-Day 3-To-5-Day Volume in Millions Q2TD thru 1/26/18 Total Pieces Measured Processing On-Time Last Mile Impact Overall Score Target Score SPLY Pieces Measured Volume Change SPLY Overall QTD Score SPLY Change Presort Overnight 214,684, % -2.43% 95.16% 96.80% 217,477, % 96.06% -0.90% Presort 2-Day 421,620, % -2.48% 92.68% 96.50% 399,218, % 95.01% -2.33% Presort 3-to-5-Day 1,518,700, % -2.36% 86.64% 95.25% 1,393,810, % 91.00% -4.36% 3-Day 1,510,592, % -2.36% 86.62% 95.25% 1,385,423, % 91.00% -4.37% 4-Day 7,759, % -1.68% 91.34% 95.25% 8,004, % 92.78% -1.44% 5-Day 348, % -1.80% 73.46% 95.25% 383, % 84.07% % Presort Total 2,155,005, % 96.00% 2,010,506, % 92.35% -3.68% Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 84

85 Last Mile Impact First-Class Mail (Letters) Last Mile Impact Trend 3.0% Last Mile Impact Trend Hurricanes Irma and Maria 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Postal Week FCM Overnight FCM 2-Day FCM 3-To-5-Day Note: Commercial mail results starting week ending 10/28/16 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior weeks results are based on Last Processing Operation (LPO) approach. Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District starting 9/16/17 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 85

86 First-Class Mail (Letters) Service Variance All Q2TD FCM Letters scores would be above 96.94% (prior to last mile), if pieces that failed by 1 day passed 100% 95% 99.50% 99.77% 99.86% 98.85% 99.61% 99.80% 98.98% 99.57% 97.59% 96.94% 95.16% 90% 89.00% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% Overnight 2-Day 3-To-5-Day QTD Score If Service Variance +1 If Service Variance +2 If Service Variance +3 Note: Service performance results before Last Mile. Q2TD Scores through 1/26/18. Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean February District in 2018 FY18 Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 86

87 Enterprise Analytics Service Performance First-Class Mail Flats 87

88 Score Prior to Last Mile First-Class Mail (Flats) Score Trend 100% 7 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 89.60% 86.64% 88.57% 88.27% 80.42% 80.75% 91.97% 91.01% 83.91% 88.09% 87.30% 84.56% 81.42% 86.45% 85.52% 77.54% 82.52% 73.74% Volume in Millions 60% 12/16/17 12/23/17 12/30/17 1/6/18 1/13/18 1/20/18 0 SPLY - Volume Overnight - Volume 2-Day - Volume 3-To-5-Day - Volume Overnight 2-Day 3-To-5-Day Q2TD thru 1/26/18 Total Pieces Measured Processing On-Time Last Mile Impact Overall Score Target Score SPLY Pieces Measured Volume Change SPLY Overall QTD Score SPLY Change Presort Overnight 1,529, % -8.43% 78.71% 96.80% 1,646, % 83.28% -4.57% Presort 2-Day 5,186, % -9.49% 75.95% 96.50% 5,085, % 82.25% -6.30% Presort 3-to-5-Day 17,820, % -8.44% 70.49% 95.25% 18,233, % 76.53% -6.04% 3-Day 17,752, % -8.44% 70.47% 95.25% 18,152, % 76.50% -6.02% 4-Day 65, % -8.00% 76.57% 95.25% 78, % 83.70% -7.13% 5-Day 2, % -8.22% 75.96% 95.25% 2, % 82.76% -6.80% Presort Total 24,535, % 96.00% 24,964, % 78.14% -5.98% Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 88

89 Last Mile Impact First-Class Mail (Flats) Last Mile Impact Trend Last Mile Impact Trend 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Postal Week FCM Overnight FCM 2-Day FCM 3-To-5-Day Note: Commercial mail results starting week ending 10/28/16 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior weeks results are based on Last Processing Operation (LPO) approach. Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District starting 9/16/17 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 89

90 Last Mile Impact Presort First-Class Mail (Flats) Last Mile Impact Trend Overnight Last Mile Impact 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Postal Week FCM Overnight (FSS) FCM Overnight (Non-FSS) Note: Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q1 and Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Mail destined to FSS Zone and Non-FSS Zone is determined based on L006 Labeling List. 90

91 Last Mile Impact Presort First-Class Mail (Flats) Last Mile Impact Trend Two-Day Last Mile Impact 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Postal Week FCM 2-Day (FSS) FCM 2-Day (Non-FSS) Note: Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q1 and Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Mail destined to FSS Zone and Non-FSS Zone is determined based on L006 Labeling List. 91

92 Last Mile Impact Presort First-Class Mail (Flats) Last Mile Impact Trend Three-to-Five-Day Last Mile Impact 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Postal Week FCM 3-To-5-Day (FSS) FCM 3-To-5-Day (Non-FSS) Note: Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q1 and Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Mail destined to FSS Zone and Non-FSS Zone is determined based on L006 Labeling List. 92

93 First-Class Mail (Flats) Service Variance All Q2TD FCM Flats scores would be above 91.07% (prior to last mile), if pieces that failed by 1 day passed 100% 90% 80% 97.84% 98.75% 97.86% 98.82% 97.62% 96.01% 95.09% 95.61% 91.07% 87.14% 85.44% 78.93% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Overnight 2-Day 3-To-5-Day QTD Score If Service Variance +1 If Service Variance +2 If Service Variance +3 Note: Service performance results before Last Mile. Q2TD scores through 1/26/18. Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean February District in 2018 FY18 Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 93

94 Thank You! 94

95 Appendix 95

96 IMpb Compliance Visualization Dashboard Demo Explore the possibility of providing a way for mailers to see quality metrics through a D3? Visualization: The current visualization will display a summary of the monthly IMpb Compliance Indicators (AQ, MQ, & BQ) Mailers will be able to drill down to view compliance data at a state level which highlights IMpb compliance issues by geographic location n_ /app/ IMPB DASHBOARD DEMO 96

97 MTAC Periodicals 97

98 MTAC Discussion Topics All Classes Bundle breakage data Two sets of service data for disasters Report that shows volume of automation flats in manual The Future of Informed Visibility Mail in Measurement Scorecard 98

99 Informed Visibility Update 99

100 Informed Visibility Update IV our single source for near real-time data THANK YOU to industry partners! Over 1,138 new mailers joined IV since July 1, 2017! +250 Million daily Logical Delivery Events provided daily through IV-MTR data feeds 1.1 Billion scan records processed daily by IV 100

101 Informed Visibility Roadmap Proposed Cadence of Application Scope Review will be provided 4 weeks prior and will include: Web changes review wireframes Data changes review new fields that will be available Demo and Documentation Preview will provided 1-2 weeks prior and include: Updates to User Guide Updates to Data Feed Specifications: Data Dictionary Sample Files / xml Messages, any new Op Codes Scope Review Demo & Documentation Preview Release Date 1/19/18 2/2/18 2/17/18 3/2/18 3/16/18 4/1/18 4/13/18 4/27/18 5/12/18 5/25/18 6/8/18 6/23/18 101

102 No Piece Scan 102

103 No Piece Scan FY18 Q1 In FY18 Q1, about 4% of Letters had No Visibility Mail Class Mail Shape Entry Discount Volume with Visibility No Visibility Volume % No Visibility Presort First Class Letters/Cards ORIGIN 5,486,453, ,762, % DSCF 6,926,570, ,289, % ORIGIN 903,892, ,372, % USPS Marketing Mail Letters DNDC 844,055,360 50,541, % ASF 60,850,551 2,676, % DDU 61,992 3, % Total 14,221,885, ,644, % In FY18 Q1, about 15% of Flats had No Visibility Mail Class Mail Shape Entry Discount Volume with Visibility No Visibility Volume % No Visibility DSCF 1,814,330, ,281, % ORIGIN 221,069,753 45,966, % USPS Marketing Mail Flat DNDC 140,035,415 45,231, % DDU 36,369,958 5,280, % ASF 2,354,093 5,022, % ADC 12,931 3, % DSCF 467,176, ,184, % ORIGIN 103,774,942 33,116, % Periodicals Flat DNDC 13,109,306 8,022, % ADC 10,194,590 3,810, % DDU 1,220,505 1,716, % ASF 53,753 17, % Total 2,809,702, ,653, % Note: Metrics based on Full-Service Volume with Start-the-Clock for Start-the-Clock Dates 10/1/ /31/

104 Periodicals Deep Dive on No Piece Scan by Entry Type 104

105 FY18 Q1 Periodicals Visibility Flows Metrics by Entry Discount Type In FY18 Q1, about 20% of Periodicals did not have any visibility at the piece level DDU Entry had the highest % of Periodicals which did not have any piece level visibility Breakdown by Entry Type: Entry Discount Type % with No Visibility % with Bundle Visibility % with FSS Visibility % with AFSM Visibility % with Other Visibility DSCF 17.66% 46.21% 18.64% 17.37% 0.13% ORIGIN 24.19% 28.46% 10.97% 35.75% 0.62% DNDC 37.97% 35.68% 7.05% 19.20% 0.10% ADC 27.21% 28.77% 6.51% 37.39% 0.12% DDU 58.44% 33.87% 0.04% 0.07% 7.58% ASF 24.48% 20.25% 1.43% 53.66% 0.18% Total 19.78% 42.26% 16.59% 21.12% 0.25% Note: Metrics based on Full-Service Volume with Start-the-Clock for Start-the-Clock Dates 10/1/ /31/

106 Manual Bullpen Scanning Mail & Package Visibility 106

107 Manual Bullpen Visibility Operation 110 Initial Breakdown Manual Operation Numbers Operation 126 Dispatch Nesting and Visibility Proof-Of-Concept testing underway in two plants (Two scanner solutions) Scanning Container Placards or Tray/Sack Labels > Nesting Dependencies: Full Service Mailings edoc Accuracy and Barcode Readability Challenges relative to Turnaround Mail Mailer is dropping Handling Units from edoc at Delivery Units as well as origin plant 107

108 Mail Visibility Applications (MVA) 108

109 Mail Visibility Applications (MVA) Two internal mobile applications launched in September 2017: Mail History Application Employees can use their USPS mobile devices to retrieve near real-time delivery information by scanning barcodes for containers, mail handling units, and single mail pieces Enhanced Barcode Diagnostics Application Employees can use their USPS mobile devices to scan barcodes to retrieve diagnostic data of the visible elements of the barcodes scanned and highlight invalid data elements USPS is currently considering how to address long hauls. 109

110 Addressing & Geospatial Technology 110

111 CASS / MASS Cycle O Informed Delivery Address Authority Data Exchange Periodicals 111

112 Cycle O Highlights 112

113 CASS /MASS Cycle O Cycle O Highlights Enhanced Identification of: PO Box only delivery ZIP Codes R777 phantom route & No-Stat addresses Door Not Accessible, No Secure Location, & Non-Delivery Days Standardization & DPV confirmation of: PBSA PO Box street address CMRA PMB identifier & DPV confirmation Single trailing alpha on a primary number New military addresses OMC & UMR 113

114 CASS /MASS Cycle O No-Stat Reason Codes The USPS has added a new table to the DPV/DSF2Hash Product called No-Stat Reason Code Table. This table will provide details as to why the records are flagged as No-Stats. This table is optional and will be available beginning in the May product, which will be posted to the Electronic Product Fulfillment (EPF) website on Monday, April 23. During CASS Cycle O certification if a Y is received on the DPV No-Stat table, the N-Stat Reason code must be correctly returned. 114

115 CASS /MASS Cycle O No-Stat Reason Code Definitions Reason Code 0 Regular No-Stat 1 IDA (Internal Drop Address) 2 CDS No-Stat 3 Collision 4 CMZ (College, Military and other types) Code Description Indicates addresses not receiving delivery and the addresses are not counted as possible deliveries. These are addresses that do not receive mail delivery directly from the USPS, but are delivered to a drop address that services them. These are addresses that have not yet become deliverable. For example, a new subdivision where lots and primary numbers have been determined, but no structure exists yet for occupancy. These addresses do not actually DPV confirm. In this case, the Y should be set to an N on the DPV A table and all other table values should be blank. These are ZIP + 4 records USPS has incorporated into the data as logical delivery points but not serviced directly by USPS. 115

116 CASS /MASS Cycle O DPV Return Code Enhancements Redefine DPV Codes to better indicate the reason an address did not produce a Y return code. Current Definitions: Y Address was DPV confirmed for both primary and (if present) secondary numbers D Address was DPV confirmed for the primary number only and the secondary number is required but missing. S Address was DPV confirmed for the primary number. A secondary number was present but unconfirmed. (This led to confusion as whether a secondary was required or not.) New Definitions: (Codes to be determined) S Address had a secondary number that was not confirmed and was not needed with the primary address number. New 1 Address had a secondary number that was not confirmed but a valid secondary number was needed with the primary address number. New 2 Address was confirmed (ex: R777) but USPS mail delivery is not made to this address. 116

117 CASS /MASS Cycle O Tentative Schedule CASS Cycle O Pre-Meeting February Partnership In Tomorrow (PIT) Meeting May NCOA Link PIT May Official Rules Release June Send Static Data September CASS & NCOA Link Stage I Release October CASS & NCOA Link Stage II Release February MASS Test Decks Available September CASS Developers Certification Completed December MASS Manufacturers Certification Completed January Software Released to End-users NLT March Expiration of CASS Cycle N July Implementation of CASS Cycle O August

118 Informed Delivery 118

119 Informed Delivery 11-Digit Conflicts 11-Digit De-conflicts Definition Address records that are currently coded in the AMS database that share the same 11-digit delivery point. These addresses are currently ineligible for participation in the Informed Delivery program. Objective Resolve the 11-digit conflicts to allow address records to become eligible to participate in the Informed Delivery program. 2,354,501 5,213,346 TOTAL DP CONFLICTS TOTAL ADDRESS RECORDS 119

120 Informed Delivery 11-Digit Conflicts 11-Digit De-conflicts Resolutions Option 1: Crosswalk: Leverage existing geo-seg +4 even/odd ranges for the generation of a unique 11-digit. It limits the use of available ZIP+4 and potential ZIP Code saturation. Also limits impact on address matching software. Option 2: Convert records to a High-Rise; uniquely assigning a ZIP+4 to colliding deliveries. Potentially, 96% of the collisions can be corrected by using this method in conjunction with option 1. Option 3: Create a derivative linkage table similar to LACS that will allow software to query the table to search for an equivalent but unique 11-digit to be applied to the mail-piece. This method will be considered if necessary after options 1 and 2. Option 4: No Resolution; conflict can t be broken. 120

121 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction 11-Digit De-conflicts Resolutions and Breakdown 121

122 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction ZIP Codes with Highest Percentage of Conflicts There are 64 ZIP Codes with 11-Digit Conflicts in the Chicago District. These ZIPs have the highest potential for implementing ZIP splits as a result of the de-conflicting effort if using the unique ZIP+4 assignment effort. Seven largest ZIP Codes with Conflicts for Chicago District ZIP CODE TOTAL CONFLICTS , , , , , , ,

123 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction ZIP Codes with Highest Percentage of Conflicts There are 159 ZIP Codes with 11-Digit Conflicts in the New York Metro Area. These ZIPs have the highest potential for implementing ZIP splits as a result of the de-conflicting effort if using the unique ZIP+4 is assignment effort. Seven Largest ZIP Codes with Conflicts for New York Metro Area ZIP CODE TOTAL CONFLICTS , , , , , , ,

124 Address Authority Data Exchange (AADE) 124

125 Address Authority Data Exchange Objective Partner with the Department of Transportation, and their efforts, to create the National Address Database. Compare address data received from the DOT National Address Database (NAD) to the USPS Delivery Point File (DPF) database. Unmatched records will be researched and validated to be potentially added to AMS as a valid delivery point. 125

126 Address Authority Data Exchange with DPF NAD Data Breakdown Currently representing 13 States Total Addresses Received from NAD 42,281,449 DPF Match before AME and AEC 30,965,575 DPF Match after AME 4,789,352 DPF Match after AEC 949,918 Total DPF 36,704,845 Match w/o DPF AME Match w/o DPF match 2,816,331 AEC Match w/o DPF Match 342,078 Total Match w/o DPF 3,158,409 No Match AEC no match (could not resolve) 2,418,195 Bad Address (Missing ZIP and Address) 956,

127 Address Authority Data Exchange Phase I ZIP + 4 Matches Targeted 80% validation by 9/30 Research and validate records that match a current ZIP + 4 range, but do not match to DPF Match w/o DPF: AME Match w/o DPF match 2,816,331 AEC Match w/o DPF Match 342,078 Total Match w/o DPF 3,158,409 Leverage enhanced geo coordinate to determine if an address match can be made. Unmatched records will be loaded into GMT for verification and acceptance into AMS by the local AMS office. 6 Districts are currently piloting the validation process to ensure records are received and being updated in AMS appropriately. Status updates will be provided monthly that shows how many records have been successfully added to the AMS database. 127

128 Periodicals 128

129 Periodicals ACS Reconciliation Process Retirement of the Periodical Reconciliation process effective with implementation of the Address Quality Census Assessment Discontinuation of Reconciliation Reports & Scan Rates Shipping Notice will report Traditional ACS counts & fees Traditional ACS notices will be charged unless: o o Full Service publisher meet the 95% volume threshold and includes an ACS STID in the IMb Traditional ACS notices will be charged when: Traditional ACS STID is used in IMb Publisher does not meet Full Service volume threshold 129

130 Periodicals PS Form 3579 Effective with the Address Quality Census Measurement & Assessment Process implementation: PS Forms 3579 will be charged when Manual Corrections are requested or required PS Form 3579 notices are generated when: IMb contains a Manual Corrections Service Type ID (STID) Invalid IMb, No IMb, or IMb Unreadable IMb contains a Traditional ACS STID but: No Participant ID Invalid Participant ID &/or Keyline Unreadable Participant ID &/or Keyline The font* used for the Participant ID & Keyline is critical * DMM February b 2018 non-narrow variant of Helvetica or Arial sans serif font in the range of 10 to 12 points. 130

131 Periodicals PARS & FPARS Form 3579 Quarter COA 652,079 (44%) Nixie 726,544 (49%) Early COA (Form 3579 before day 60 - suppressed) 103,532 (7%) IMb Not Present 205,354 (14%) IMb Present 1,276,801 (86%) Manual Correction STID in IMb 1,085,359 (85%) Invalid STID in IMb 18,779 (1%) * Traditional ACS STID in IMb 115,143 (14%) No Participant ID 103,138 (90%) Invalid Participant ID 12,005 (10%) Forms 3579 Generated 1,482,155 Forms 3579 Sent 1,373,461 * Prior to FPARS, CFS Operators could override a Manual STID and generate Traditional ACS if present. 131

132 MTAC Pulse of the Industry Service performance Measurement 132

133 Mail In Measurement Approach to Increasing Mail in Measurement 133

134 Percentage of Total Volume that is Full Service Full Service Mail Trend In December 2017, 92% of Commercial mail eligible for Full-Service was Full-Service Note: Below graph depicts FS Adoption % as an avg. for the quarter; Slide title depicts the % for the latest month. 100% 94% 90% 86% 82% 86% 87% 89% 89% 89% 90% 91% 90% 92% 92% 92% 92% 80% 83% 79% 76% 74% 70% 69% 64% 60% 57% 60% 50% 49% 50% 51% 53% 53% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FCM Letters & Cards FCM Flats MKT Letters MKT Flats PER Flats All Mail Types 134

135 FY18 Q1 Commercial Mail Volume Mail In Measurement In FY18 Q1, over 78% of Full-Service mail was in Measurement Mail Class Mail Shape Commercial Full-Service Eligible Full-Service In Measurement % of Full-Service In Measurement First Class Presort Letter/Card 9,749,483,116 9,372,407,989 8,977,992,193 6,635,144, % First Class Presort Flat 169,899, ,348, ,977,479 87,698, % USPS Marketing Letter 14,499,209,464 14,209,168,816 13,338,299,049 11,056,692, % USPS Marketing Flat 5,817,237,048 3,998,819,735 3,566,993,218 2,751,423, % Periodicals Flat 1,250,121,841 1,206,914,247 1,093,896, ,828, % Total 31,485,951,126 28,938,659,365 27,104,158,475 21,286,786, % Metrics are for Mailing Dates 10/1/ /31/2017 Commercial and Full-Service Eligible Volumes sourced from PostalOne! 135

136 Increase Mail In Measurement Teams & Chronology M-in-M Network HQ Team SPM Priyanka Misri, John Nabor, Wayne Palmiter Accenture Beau Rauch, Lisa Leu Marketing Chip Brown III (MMS), Frank Montemayor (BMS), Phillip Parrish (MEPT) Networks Prat Shah Area Co-Coordinators (Mail Acceptance, Operations) CM Danny Luc, Dmetrius Alexander EA Barry Gilbert, Regis Curtin GL Linda Bergeland, Drew Mason NE Michelle Saracusa, Carla Edmonds PA Claudia Munoz, Kelly Porter SO Beth Baughman, Rick Bay WE Ray Cordova, Jon Hummel Resolution Chronology 03/2017 to 07/2017 identify top 3 exclusion reasons for each mail class/shape and HQ team investigate high volume site/mailer pairs for root cause and resolution 07/2018 publish of HQ team results in Resolution Guide 08/2017 onward investigate Field inquiries regarding published resolutions and update the Guide 11/2017 complete L601 correction for LA, NJ, KC, and STL NDC s for Invalid EPFED 11/2017 complete Southern Area STC correction to FDB locale key and CSA s for No Start-the- Clock 01/2018 eliminate Incorrect Entry Facility exclusion 02/2018 initiate Field collaborations as method to develop resolutions for unresolved exclusions 03/2018 implement resolution for Seamless BMEU entry for No Start-the-Clock Pending Long Haul exclusion dependent on completion of MVA Trailer Visibility application 136

137 Increase Mail In Measurement Communications, Tools, Efforts, Results Field Communications 07/2018 publish Improved SPM Exclusions webpage 08/2018 onward initiate and continue national focus on exclusion volume and resolution efforts through monthly Area Co-Coordinator checkpoints. HQ team participate in Area facilitated District Co-Coordinator checkpoints. Field Tools 07/2018 publish Resolution Guide for Commercial Mail Excluded from Measurement (on 4th revision) 07/2018 improve SPM Exclusions by Area analysis files (on 3rd revision) Current Resolution Efforts Results Ongoing Field analysis of exclusions and application of resolutions w/ HQ team support 02/2018 Field apply new resolution for SCF entry mail entered at co-located BMEU 02/2018 HQ/Field collaboration w/ Omaha P&DC and North Texas P&DC to develop resolutions for Inconsistent SPM Data and No Piece Scan exclusions for letters 02/2018 initiate investigation into No Piece Scan exclusion for BPM Mail in Measurement by FY: FY16 = 71.73%, FY17 = 74.88%, FY18 YTD = 78.50% 04/2017 initiate I-MR charts to track monthly % included by mail class/shape 01/2018 initiate national chart to track FY % and volume included by mail class/shape 137

138 Increase Mail In Measurement % Included FY 2018 Dec +3.62% Acronyms & Symbols I = Individual Values (top chart) MR = Moving Range (bottom chart) X = average I for the period M R = average MR for the period UCL = upper control limit LCL = lower control limit +3.33% +3.59% 138

139 Increase Mail In Measurement % Included FY 2018 Dec +0.86% +3.97% +2.66% -0.76% 139

140 Increase Mail In Measurement Results Update FY 2018 Dec District Exclusion Results (YTD Dec) FY 2017 AREA DISTRICT 07/08-09/30 YTD Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2 NATIONAL 23.89% 21.98% 22.59% 21.22% 22.14% CAPITAL METRO 24.07% 22.54% 22.52% 21.96% 23.31% EASTERN 22.90% 21.96% 21.00% 20.72% 24.84% GREAT LAKES 26.64% 25.56% 26.45% 23.47% 27.02% NORTHEAST 25.74% 22.87% 24.79% 20.65% 23.16% PACIFIC 21.12% 18.24% 20.88% 16.93% 16.54% SOUTHERN 27.35% 22.46% 23.25% 22.19% 21.83% WESTERN 19.39% 19.95% 19.91% 21.43% 18.18% FY Trends National (YTD Dec) FY

141 Service Diagnostics 141

142 End-to-End Mail Diagnostics Periodicals 142

143 Enterprise Analytics Service Performance Periodicals Flats 143

144 Percent On Time IMB Periodicals Performance by Quarter Destination Entry IMB Periodicals FY13 thru FY18 Performance By Quarter Hurricane Sandy Operation Window Change Winter Storm Jonas Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose and Maria; No FedEx air lift on July 3 Winter Storm Stella California Wildfire; Winter Storm Chloe Winter storms Grayson, Inga and Jaxon; California mudslides Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Postal Quarter DSCF DADC DNDC Note: Preliminary FY18 Q2 through 1/26/18. Results starting FY17 Q1 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior quarters results are based on Last Processing February Operation 2018 (LPO) approach. Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District starting 9/16/17 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 144

145 Score Prior to Last Mile Periodicals Score Trend 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 94.19% 93.77% 94.47% 94.28% 93.95% 92.91% % 91.71% 94.26% 93.34% 93.46% 76.23% 91.71% % 72.98% % 72.29% 71.24% /16/17 12/23/17 12/30/17 1/6/18 1/13/18 1/20/18 SPLY - Volume DSCF - Volume DADC - Volume End-to-End - Volume DSCF DADC End-to-End Volume in Millions Q2TD thru 1/26/18 Total Pieces Measured Processing On-Time Last Mile Impact Overall Score Target Score SPLY Pieces Measured Volume Change SPLY Overall QTD Score SPLY Change SCF Flats 162,691, % -8.75% 84.32% 91.80% 173,208, % 86.59% -2.27% ADC Flats 3,604, % -7.36% 86.46% 91.80% 3,662, % 88.49% -2.03% E2E Flats 29,542, % -4.68% 66.96% 91.80% 32,942, % 68.87% -1.91% 2-Day N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3-Day 8,531, % -5.12% 79.54% 91.80% 11,509, % 84.16% -4.63% 4-Day 13,688, % -4.88% 65.10% 91.80% 12,695, % 67.66% -2.56% 5-Day 277, % -4.90% 59.63% 91.80% 656, % 57.18% 2.45% 6+ Day 7,045, % -3.77% 55.61% 91.80% 8,081, % 49.93% 5.68% Total 195,838, % 91.80% 209,814, % 82.31% -1.75% February Service 2018 performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 145

146 Last Mile Impact Periodicals Last Mile Impact Trend Last Mile Impact Trend 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Postal Week Destination End-to-End Note: Results starting week ending 10/28/16 are based on Days Left Group (DLG) approach, whereas all prior weeks results are based on Last Processing Operation (LPO) approach. Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District starting 9/16/17 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 146

147 Last Mile Impact Periodicals Last Mile Impact Trend Destination-Entry Last Mile Impact 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Postal Week Destination (FSS) Destination (Non-FSS) Note: Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q1 and Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 147 Mail destined to FSS Zone and Non-FSS Zone is determined based on L006 Labeling List.

148 Last Mile Impact Periodicals Last Mile Impact Trend End-to-End Last Mile Impact 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Postal Week End-to-End (FSS) End-to-End (Non-FSS) Note: Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q1 and Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 148 Mail destined to FSS Zone and Non-FSS Zone is determined based on L006 Labeling List.

149 Last Mile Impact Periodicals Last Mile Impact Trend Overall Last Mile Impact 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Postal Week Overall (FSS) Overall (Non-FSS) Note: Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean District in FY18 Q1 and Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 149 Mail destined to FSS Zone and Non-FSS Zone is determined based on L006 Labeling List.

150 Periodicals Service Variance Q2TD DSCF and DADC Periodicals scores would be above 97.76% (prior to last mile), if pieces that failed by 1 day passed 100% 90% 80% 70% 97.76% 98.89% 99.30% 97.91% 98.89% 99.31% 93.07% 93.82% 91.53% 87.76% 81.69% 71.64% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% DSCF DADC End-to-End QTD Score If Service Variance +1 If Service Variance +2 If Service Variance +3 Note: Service performance results before Last Mile. Q2TD scores through 1/26/18. Service performance measurement was suspended for mail originating from or destined to Caribbean February District in 2018 FY18 Q2 due to the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 150

151 Thank You! 151

152 Appendix 152

153 IMpb Compliance Visualization Dashboard Demo Explore the possibility of providing a way for mailers to see quality metrics through a D3? Visualization: The current visualization will display a summary of the monthly IMpb Compliance Indicators (AQ, MQ, & BQ) Mailers will be able to drill down to view compliance data at a state level which highlights IMpb compliance issues by geographic location n_ /app/ IMPB DASHBOARD DEMO 153

154 MTAC Marketing Mail 154

155 MTAC Discussion Topics All Classes Bundle breakage data Two sets of service data for disasters Report that shows volume of automation flats in manual The Future of Informed Visibility Mail in Measurement Scorecard 155

156 Informed Visibility Update 156

157 Informed Visibility Update IV our single source for near real-time data THANK YOU to industry partners! Over 1,138 new mailers joined IV since July 1, 2017! +250 Million daily Logical Delivery Events provided daily through IV-MTR data feeds 1.1 Billion scan records processed daily by IV 157

158 Informed Visibility Roadmap Proposed Cadence of Application Scope Review will be provided 4 weeks prior and will include: Web changes review wireframes Data changes review new fields that will be available Demo and Documentation Preview will provided 1-2 weeks prior and include: Updates to User Guide Updates to Data Feed Specifications: Data Dictionary Sample Files / xml Messages, any new Op Codes Scope Review Demo & Documentation Preview Release Date 1/19/18 2/2/18 2/17/18 3/2/18 3/16/18 4/1/18 4/13/18 4/27/18 5/12/18 5/25/18 6/8/18 6/23/18 158

159 No Piece Scan 159

160 No Piece Scan FY18 Q1 In FY18 Q1, about 4% of Letters had No Visibility Mail Class Mail Shape Entry Discount Volume with Visibility No Visibility Volume % No Visibility Presort First Class Letters/Cards ORIGIN 5,486,453, ,762, % DSCF 6,926,570, ,289, % ORIGIN 903,892, ,372, % USPS Marketing Mail Letters DNDC 844,055,360 50,541, % ASF 60,850,551 2,676, % DDU 61,992 3, % Total 14,221,885, ,644, % In FY18 Q1, about 15% of Flats had No Visibility Mail Class Mail Shape Entry Discount Volume with Visibility No Visibility Volume % No Visibility DSCF 1,814,330, ,281, % ORIGIN 221,069,753 45,966, % USPS Marketing Mail Flat DNDC 140,035,415 45,231, % DDU 36,369,958 5,280, % ASF 2,354,093 5,022, % ADC 12,931 3, % DSCF 467,176, ,184, % ORIGIN 103,774,942 33,116, % Periodicals Flat DNDC 13,109,306 8,022, % ADC 10,194,590 3,810, % DDU 1,220,505 1,716, % ASF 53,753 17, % Total 2,809,702, ,653, % Note: Metrics based on Full-Service Volume with Start-the-Clock for Start-the-Clock Dates 10/1/ /31/

161 Periodicals Deep Dive on No Piece Scan by Entry Type 161

162 FY18 Q1 Periodicals Visibility Flows Metrics by Entry Discount Type In FY18 Q1, about 20% of Periodicals did not have any visibility at the piece level DDU Entry had the highest % of Periodicals which did not have any piece level visibility Breakdown by Entry Type: Entry Discount Type % with No Visibility % with Bundle Visibility % with FSS Visibility % with AFSM Visibility % with Other Visibility DSCF 17.66% 46.21% 18.64% 17.37% 0.13% ORIGIN 24.19% 28.46% 10.97% 35.75% 0.62% DNDC 37.97% 35.68% 7.05% 19.20% 0.10% ADC 27.21% 28.77% 6.51% 37.39% 0.12% DDU 58.44% 33.87% 0.04% 0.07% 7.58% ASF 24.48% 20.25% 1.43% 53.66% 0.18% Total 19.78% 42.26% 16.59% 21.12% 0.25% Note: Metrics based on Full-Service Volume with Start-the-Clock for Start-the-Clock Dates 10/1/ /31/

163 Manual Bullpen Scanning Mail & Package Visibility 163

164 Manual Bullpen Visibility Operation 110 Initial Breakdown Manual Operation Numbers Operation 126 Dispatch Nesting and Visibility Proof-Of-Concept testing underway in two plants (Two scanner solutions) Scanning Container Placards or Tray/Sack Labels > Nesting Dependencies: Full Service Mailings edoc Accuracy and Barcode Readability Challenges relative to Turnaround Mail Mailer is dropping Handling Units from edoc at Delivery Units as well as origin plant 164

165 Mail Visibility Applications (MVA) 165

166 Mail Visibility Applications (MVA) Two internal mobile applications launched in September 2017: Mail History Application Employees can use their USPS mobile devices to retrieve near real-time delivery information by scanning barcodes for containers, mail handling units, and single mail pieces Enhanced Barcode Diagnostics Application Employees can use their USPS mobile devices to scan barcodes to retrieve diagnostic data of the visible elements of the barcodes scanned and highlight invalid data elements USPS is currently considering how to address long hauls. 166

167 Addressing & Geospatial Technology 167

168 CASS / MASS Cycle O Green & Secure Informed Delivery Address Authority Data Exchange 168

169 Cycle O Highlights 169

170 CASS /MASS Cycle O Cycle O Highlights Enhanced Identification of: PO Box only delivery ZIP Codes R777 phantom route & No-Stat addresses Door Not Accessible, No Secure Location, & Non-Delivery Days Standardization & DPV confirmation of: PBSA PO Box street address CMRA PMB identifier & DPV confirmation Single trailing alpha on a primary number New military addresses OMC & UMR 170

171 CASS /MASS Cycle O No-Stat Reason Codes The USPS has added a new table to the DPV/DSF2Hash Product called No-Stat Reason Code Table. This table will provide details as to why the records are flagged as No-Stats. This table is optional and will be available beginning in the May product, which will be posted to the Electronic Product Fulfillment (EPF) website on Monday, April 23. During CASS Cycle O certification if a Y is received on the DPV No-Stat table, the N-Stat Reason code must be correctly returned. 171

172 CASS /MASS Cycle O No-Stat Reason Code Definitions Reason Code 0 Regular No-Stat 1 IDA (Internal Drop Address) 2 CDS No-Stat 3 Collision 4 CMZ (College, Military and other types) Code Description Indicates addresses not receiving delivery and the addresses are not counted as possible deliveries. These are addresses that do not receive mail delivery directly from the USPS, but are delivered to a drop address that services them. These are addresses that have not yet become deliverable. For example, a new subdivision where lots and primary numbers have been determined, but no structure exists yet for occupancy. These addresses do not actually DPV confirm. In this case, the Y should be set to an N on the DPV A table and all other table values should be blank. These are ZIP + 4 records USPS has incorporated into the data as logical delivery points but not serviced directly by USPS. 172

173 CASS /MASS Cycle O DPV Return Code Enhancements Redefine DPV Codes to better indicate the reason an address did not produce a Y return code. Current Definitions: Y Address was DPV confirmed for both primary and (if present) secondary numbers D Address was DPV confirmed for the primary number only and the secondary number is required but missing. S Address was DPV confirmed for the primary number. A secondary number was present but unconfirmed. (This led to confusion as whether a secondary was required or not.) New Definitions: (Codes to be determined) S Address had a secondary number that was not confirmed and was not needed with the primary address number. New 1 Address had a secondary number that was not confirmed but a valid secondary number was needed with the primary address number. New 2 Address was confirmed (ex: R777) but USPS mail delivery is not made to this address. 173

174 CASS /MASS Cycle O Tentative Schedule CASS Cycle O Pre-Meeting February Partnership In Tomorrow (PIT) Meeting May NCOA Link PIT May Official Rules Release June Send Static Data September CASS & NCOA Link Stage I Release October CASS & NCOA Link Stage II Release February MASS Test Decks Available September CASS Developers Certification Completed December MASS Manufacturers Certification Completed January Software Released to End-users NLT March Expiration of CASS Cycle N July Implementation of CASS Cycle O August

175 Green & Secure 175

176 Green & Secure Green & Secure Mail Disposition Options Intelligent Mail barcode is REQUIRED! First-Class Mail Change Service Requested Option 1 Change Service Requested Option 2 Secure Destruction Service Option 1 Secure Destruction Service Option 2 USPS Marketing Mail Change Service Requested Option 1 Change Service Requested Option 2 (Forwarded USPS Marketing Mail Fees are charged for forwarded pieces) Option 1 recycles ALL UAA Option 2 forwards if possible, recycles the rest Secure Destruction shreds before recycling 176

177 Informed Delivery 177

178 Informed Delivery 11-Digit Conflicts 11-Digit De-conflicts Definition Address records that are currently coded in the AMS database that share the same 11-digit delivery point. These addresses are currently ineligible for participation in the Informed Delivery program. Objective Resolve the 11-digit conflicts to allow address records to become eligible to participate in the Informed Delivery program. 2,354,501 5,213,346 TOTAL DP CONFLICTS TOTAL ADDRESS RECORDS 178

179 Informed Delivery 11-Digit Conflicts 11-Digit De-conflicts Resolutions Option 1: Crosswalk: Leverage existing geo-seg +4 even/odd ranges for the generation of a unique 11-digit. It limits the use of available ZIP+4 and potential ZIP Code saturation. Also limits impact on address matching software. Option 2: Convert records to a High-Rise; uniquely assigning a ZIP+4 to colliding deliveries. Potentially, 96% of the collisions can be corrected by using this method in conjunction with option 1. Option 3: Create a derivative linkage table similar to LACS that will allow software to query the table to search for an equivalent but unique 11-digit to be applied to the mail-piece. This method will be considered if necessary after options 1 and 2. Option 4: No Resolution; conflict can t be broken. 179

180 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction 11-Digit De-conflicts Resolutions and Breakdown 180

181 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction ZIP Codes with Highest Percentage of Conflicts There are 64 ZIP Codes with 11-Digit Conflicts in the Chicago District. These ZIPs have the highest potential for implementing ZIP splits as a result of the de-conflicting effort if using the unique ZIP+4 assignment effort. Seven largest ZIP Codes with Conflicts for Chicago District ZIP CODE TOTAL CONFLICTS , , , , , , ,

182 Informed Delivery 11-Digit De-confliction ZIP Codes with Highest Percentage of Conflicts There are 159 ZIP Codes with 11-Digit Conflicts in the New York Metro Area. These ZIPs have the highest potential for implementing ZIP splits as a result of the de-conflicting effort if using the unique ZIP+4 is assignment effort. Seven Largest ZIP Codes with Conflicts for New York Metro Area ZIP CODE TOTAL CONFLICTS , , , , , , ,

183 Address Authority Data Exchange (AADE) 183

184 Address Authority Data Exchange Objective Partner with the Department of Transportation, and their efforts, to create the National Address Database. Compare address data received from the DOT National Address Database (NAD) to the USPS Delivery Point File (DPF) database. Unmatched records will be researched and validated to be potentially added to AMS as a valid delivery point. 184

185 Address Authority Data Exchange with DPF NAD Data Breakdown Currently representing 13 States Total Addresses Received from NAD 42,281,449 DPF Match before AME and AEC 30,965,575 DPF Match after AME 4,789,352 DPF Match after AEC 949,918 Total DPF 36,704,845 Match w/o DPF AME Match w/o DPF match 2,816,331 AEC Match w/o DPF Match 342,078 Total Match w/o DPF 3,158,409 No Match AEC no match (could not resolve) 2,418,195 Bad Address (Missing ZIP and Address) 956,

186 Address Authority Data Exchange Phase I ZIP + 4 Matches Targeted 80% validation by 9/30 Research and validate records that match a current ZIP + 4 range, but do not match to DPF Match w/o DPF: AME Match w/o DPF match 2,816,331 AEC Match w/o DPF Match 342,078 Total Match w/o DPF 3,158,409 Leverage enhanced geo coordinate to determine if an address match can be made. Unmatched records will be loaded into GMT for verification and acceptance into AMS by the local AMS office. 6 Districts are currently piloting the validation process to ensure records are received and being updated in AMS appropriately. Status updates will be provided monthly that shows how many records have been successfully added to the AMS database. 186

187 MTAC Pulse of the Industry Service performance Measurement 187

188 Mail In Measurement Approach to Increasing Mail in Measurement 188

189 Percentage of Total Volume that is Full Service Full Service Mail Trend In December 2017, 92% of Commercial mail eligible for Full-Service was Full-Service Note: Below graph depicts FS Adoption % as an avg. for the quarter; Slide title depicts the % for the latest month. 100% 94% 90% 86% 82% 86% 87% 89% 89% 89% 90% 91% 90% 92% 92% 92% 92% 80% 83% 79% 76% 74% 70% 69% 64% 60% 57% 60% 50% 49% 50% 51% 53% 53% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FCM Letters & Cards FCM Flats MKT Letters MKT Flats PER Flats All Mail Types 189

190 FY18 Q1 Commercial Mail Volume Mail In Measurement In FY18 Q1, over 78% of Full-Service mail was in Measurement Mail Class Mail Shape Commercial Full-Service Eligible Full-Service In Measurement % of Full-Service In Measurement First Class Presort Letter/Card 9,749,483,116 9,372,407,989 8,977,992,193 6,635,144, % First Class Presort Flat 169,899, ,348, ,977,479 87,698, % USPS Marketing Letter 14,499,209,464 14,209,168,816 13,338,299,049 11,056,692, % USPS Marketing Flat 5,817,237,048 3,998,819,735 3,566,993,218 2,751,423, % Periodicals Flat 1,250,121,841 1,206,914,247 1,093,896, ,828, % Total 31,485,951,126 28,938,659,365 27,104,158,475 21,286,786, % Metrics are for Mailing Dates 10/1/ /31/2017 Commercial and Full-Service Eligible Volumes sourced from PostalOne! 190

191 Increase Mail In Measurement Teams & Chronology M-in-M Network HQ Team SPM Priyanka Misri, John Nabor, Wayne Palmiter Accenture Beau Rauch, Lisa Leu Marketing Chip Brown III (MMS), Frank Montemayor (BMS), Phillip Parrish (MEPT) Networks Prat Shah Area Co-Coordinators (Mail Acceptance, Operations) CM Danny Luc, Dmetrius Alexander EA Barry Gilbert, Regis Curtin GL Linda Bergeland, Drew Mason NE Michelle Saracusa, Carla Edmonds PA Claudia Munoz, Kelly Porter SO Beth Baughman, Rick Bay WE Ray Cordova, Jon Hummel Resolution Chronology 03/2017 to 07/2017 identify top 3 exclusion reasons for each mail class/shape and HQ team investigate high volume site/mailer pairs for root cause and resolution 07/2018 publish of HQ team results in Resolution Guide 08/2017 onward investigate Field inquiries regarding published resolutions and update the Guide 11/2017 complete L601 correction for LA, NJ, KC, and STL NDC s for Invalid EPFED 11/2017 complete Southern Area STC correction to FDB locale key and CSA s for No Start-the- Clock 01/2018 eliminate Incorrect Entry Facility exclusion 02/2018 initiate Field collaborations as method to develop resolutions for unresolved exclusions 03/2018 implement resolution for Seamless BMEU entry for No Start-the-Clock Pending Long Haul exclusion dependent on completion of MVA Trailer Visibility application 191

192 Increase Mail In Measurement Communications, Tools, Efforts, Results Field Communications 07/2018 publish Improved SPM Exclusions webpage 08/2018 onward initiate and continue national focus on exclusion volume and resolution efforts through monthly Area Co-Coordinator checkpoints. HQ team participate in Area facilitated District Co-Coordinator checkpoints. Field Tools 07/2018 publish Resolution Guide for Commercial Mail Excluded from Measurement (on 4th revision) 07/2018 improve SPM Exclusions by Area analysis files (on 3rd revision) Current Resolution Efforts Results Ongoing Field analysis of exclusions and application of resolutions w/ HQ team support 02/2018 Field apply new resolution for SCF entry mail entered at co-located BMEU 02/2018 HQ/Field collaboration w/ Omaha P&DC and North Texas P&DC to develop resolutions for Inconsistent SPM Data and No Piece Scan exclusions for letters 02/2018 initiate investigation into No Piece Scan exclusion for BPM Mail in Measurement by FY: FY16 = 71.73%, FY17 = 74.88%, FY18 YTD = 78.50% 04/2017 initiate I-MR charts to track monthly % included by mail class/shape 01/2018 initiate national chart to track FY % and volume included by mail class/shape 192

193 Increase Mail In Measurement % Included FY 2018 Dec +3.62% Acronyms & Symbols I = Individual Values (top chart) MR = Moving Range (bottom chart) X = average I for the period M R = average MR for the period UCL = upper control limit LCL = lower control limit +3.33% +3.59% 193

194 Increase Mail In Measurement % Included FY 2018 Dec +0.86% +3.97% +2.66% -0.76% 194

195 Increase Mail In Measurement Results Update FY 2018 Dec District Exclusion Results (YTD Dec) FY 2017 AREA DISTRICT 07/08-09/30 YTD Oct 2017 Nov 2017 Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2 NATIONAL 23.89% 21.98% 22.59% 21.22% 22.14% CAPITAL METRO 24.07% 22.54% 22.52% 21.96% 23.31% EASTERN 22.90% 21.96% 21.00% 20.72% 24.84% GREAT LAKES 26.64% 25.56% 26.45% 23.47% 27.02% NORTHEAST 25.74% 22.87% 24.79% 20.65% 23.16% PACIFIC 21.12% 18.24% 20.88% 16.93% 16.54% SOUTHERN 27.35% 22.46% 23.25% 22.19% 21.83% WESTERN 19.39% 19.95% 19.91% 21.43% 18.18% FY Trends National (YTD Dec) FY

196 Service Diagnostics 196

197 End-to-End Mail Diagnostics Periodicals 197